Courts will often find that there was no contract or agreement when the two parties attach a significantly different meaning to the same material term – in this case the material term is “daily service.”

Lauren took “daily service” to mean “service every day.” Laundry Company used “daily service” as it is used in the commercial laundry business – “every day but Sunday.”

However, that does NOT apply in this case.

Courts will also often find that trade usages control the interpretation of terms in a contract or agreement.

However, because the Laundry Company knew that Lauren was not aware of the trade usage, it does NOT control in this case either.

Law: When parties attach significantly different meanings to the same material term, the meaning that controls is that attached by one of them, if at the time the agreement was made: that party did not know of any different meaning attached by the other party; and, the other party knew the meaning attached by the first party.”

In other words:
Lauren only knew “daily service” to mean “every day” and she did not know that the Laundry Company attached a different meaning to “daily service”; and,
Laundry Company knew Lauren thought she was contracting for “service every day.”

Therefore, the court will find “daily service” to mean “every day” and Lauren prevails.

She may now demand that Laundry Company provide service every day for $750 per week – or not.